FAST 2 FAbric of Society. Theory and Technology) Rosaria Conte and Mario Paolucci LABSS (Laboratory...

FAST2

FAbric of Society. Theory and Technology)

Rosaria Conte and Mario Paolucci

LABSS (Laboratory of Agent Based Social Simulation), Roma, ISTC-CNR

SCIVE, Lisbon, Sept. 16th 2010

Grand challenges

Humanity is facing grand challenges (see FuturICT, http://www.futurict.ethz.ch/FuturIcT

Common features: Far-reaching and accelerated diffusion and contagion (eg.,

organized crime) Multiple levels with multidirectional connections Heterogeneous interfering networks Technology-driven innovation Fuzzy confines Competitive evolutionary processes (economic growth

demographic growth)

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

10 examples

1. Demographic change of the population structure (change of birth rate, migration)2. Financial and economic stability (trust, consumption and investments; government debts, taxation,

and inflation/deflation; sustainability of social benefit systems…3. Social, economic and political inclusion (people of different gender, age, education,income, religion,

culture, language, preferences,…; unemployment)4. Public health (spreading of epidemics [flu, HIV], obesity, smoking, or healthy diets; incentives

supporting food safety)5. Balance of power (in a multi-polar world; also between individual and collective rights, political and

company power; protection of pluralisms, individual freedom, and minorities…)

6. Conflict (terrorism, organized crime, social unrest, wars)7. Institutional design and dynamics (over-regulation, crisis of

authority, compliance, corruption, balance between global and local, central and decentral,…)

8. Sustainability of communication and information systems (education and inheritance of culture; cyber risks, violation of privacy, misuse of sensitive data, data deluge, spam, …)

9. Collective behavior and opinion dynamics (social contagion, breakdown of trust, extremism, changing values, breakdown of cooperation, compliance, or solidarity)

10. Sustainable use of resources and environment (travel behavior, consumptio habits, efficient use of energy and other resources, participation in recycling efforts)

Are we equipped to answer them?

We are developing valuable instruments and techniques for generating, gathering, and analysing data,

How about theories? We need a fabric of society: a theory-driven equipment for

understanding/monitoring/exploring society while (re)producing it

More specifically, understanding-while-producing social artefacts (material and immaterial artefacts spontaneously emerging or designed to control, rule populations of agents) and

Figuring out their potential future properties and their impact on agents.

In search for theory

Classic social constructionist perspective: A socially constructed reality

is (re)produced by people acting on their interpretations and their knowledge of it through an ongoing, dynamic process.



Two views Social constructionism

-> social constructs (Berger and Luckmann, 1966)

Social constructivism -> psychological constructs (Vygotsky, 1978; Piaget)





QuickTime™ and a decompressorare needed to see this picture.



Social constructivism

Vygotsky and Piaget focussed on active agency and on process of construction, how people work

together to construct artifacts.



Social constructionism Focussed on the

effects of the process, ie. the artefacts:

By interacting, individuals squeeze one another’s interpretations into a common body of social knowledge

Which once handed to next generations becomes given, inevitable, institutionalised: ???



Strong social constructionism QuickTime™ and a

decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Searle and Hacking warned us (1999, p. 12) against a strong variant of social constructionism, according to which all facts are social, implying that “nothing has reality until it is thought or spoken of, or written about. This extravagant notion is descended from (…) the doctrine that all that exists is mental." For Steven Pinker (2002, p. 202) “social constructions (…) exist

only because people tacitly agree to act as if they exist. Examples include money, (…) presidency of the United States.”

Defensively aimed to debunk dangerous ideologies, strong constructionism denies the

Reality of social facts because ideologically undesirable (gender differences, biological bases of behaviours, inter-ethnic tensions, etc.)

Independence of social entities to be modified (governments, regimes, institutions, etc.).

Useless and dangerous!



Weak social constructionism

Searle’s (1995, p. 63) ”social facts” (SF) are such by virtue of

1. collectively willing and intending

2. to impose some particular function

3. by a constitutive rule: X counts as Y in C.

SF depend on "brute facts.”– Ontologically = cannot take effect

without brute facts – Logically = brute facts provide a logical

foundation for social facts, – Temporally = are preceded by brute

facts







Dependence is mutual…

If social facts depend on brute facts

money needs metal to fulfil the function it is collecitvely assigned (Searle)

regimes kill people by means of gallows, weapons, bombs, missiles, lagers, gulags, etc.

brute facts depend on social facts as well

Gallows depend on social facts and institutions (trial, court, sentence, executioner) to take effect







Did both fulfil their mission?

Only in part… Social constructivists

influenced the theory of development, rather than study of social institutions

concentrated on individual learning.

Social constructionists overesteemated

knowledge at the expenses of goals,

mindreading at the expenses of mindchanging.

No general theory of social artefacts’ properties!





Types of dependence• Temporal and logical dependence apply to higher or

evolutionary more recent levels of reality. Not particularly interesting

• How about ontological dependence? Major argument against socalled reification of social artefacts

• But is it a good argument? What is an ontologically independent entity? – Genes depend on their vehicles, ie. Individuals, to replicate. They

existence depends on the existence and reproduction of individuals.

– Individuals are implemented on a bunch of atoms and neurons.

What about autonomy?

Ontological dependence and autonomy

• What is the link between ontological dependence and autonomy?

• Lets go back to the notion of limited autonomy. Humans are limitedly autonomous – as they decide what to believe and do, based on internal criteria, – which they can decide, if persuaded, to modify (Conte and

Castelfranchi, 1995)

• The same notion applies to (onto)logically dependent entities, which are limitedly autonomous (Conte and Turrini, 2006) – Constitutive rules are internal criteria for deciding what is true and

what can or ought to be done– difficult to modify social entities without modifying constitutive rules

Dependence and power

• Does implementation on lower levels of reality prevent higher level entities to autonomously exercise power on lower levels?

• Humans manipulate natural resources, biological bases, genetic transmission, etc.

Typologies of artefacts• We need a formal ontology!

(for preliminary works, see Conte, 2004; Winter, 2008; Aunger, 2010)

• Not all artefacts are supporting, faciltating our activities (possibly at the expense of our fellows)– physical– mental– prosocial– antisocial









Control artefacts

• Control = objects designed for modifying our– states– actions/will

• Even in extreme ways





QuickTime™ e undecompressore TIFF (Non compresso)

sono necessari per visualizzare quest'immagine.

A complex category• Servoartefacts• Masterartefacts• Both for

– Supporting– Controlling our actions and minds– Mixed

• Supporting servoartefacts for controlling masterartefacts

• Controlling servoartefacts for supporting masterartefacts (tutors, teachers, etc.)

• Social roles as either supporting or controlling servoartefacts






Social institutions as complex artefacts

• Including– Masterartefacts– Servoartefacts (traffic lights

are installed by administrators, fines are applied by policemen and death sentences are issued by judges)

• Control• Support

• Ontological dependence does not prevent the exercise of power.




are needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and a

decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Institutions’ power Institutions

rule people’s actions and their will by means of brute facts and producers’

actions (implemented on material artefacts and people’s actions)

outlive the will that put them into existence escape producers’ control. Exercise power:

• Directly, pursue/thwart goals (but consider the difference between

– Prison– Kidnapping)

• modify powers (empowerment)• Modify minds, mindchangin











Consequences

• Searle’s analysis is necessary but insufficient:– X counting as Y in C implies a new set of properties of X– Based on a transfer of Z’s properties:

• X setting Z’s goals in C • X exercising power on Z (preventing them from achieving their goals),

even taking out their lives!!! • X’s limited autonomy

– Z’s autonomy is limited by X’s power– Z’s limited capacity to act on X and modify it: not so easy to control controllers



Two ways to produce artefacts

Extension of properties (supporting artefacts)

Transfer of properties, or, alienation (controlling artefacts)

How ? When? Further effects?

Alienation Humans alienate not only the product

of their physical activity (labor force) But also some of their mental and

social properties, including mindchanging

Better to understand the alienating nature of social artefacts.

Lets go back to Marx.

Marx’s theory of alienation

Manuscripts of 1844 = Marx's argument that modern industrial societies result in estrangement (or alienation) of wage-workers from own life.

Theory of alienation (Entfremdung), refers to separation of things that naturally belong together, or to antagonism between things that are properly in harmony.

Social alienation deprives humans of aspects of "human nature" ('species-essence' or 'species-being’, conferring them to non-human entities (power, control, agency)




In the labour process

Four aspects of alienation: of worker from his or her ‘species

essence’ as a human being of labour into a commodity to be

traded on the market, of effect of labour, appropriated by

capitalist of worker from act of production,

turned into a sequence of meaningless acts.



• “Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed (…) an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, (…). 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having (…) thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential nature. ... Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential

nature." (Comment on James Mill).

Moving to a more abstract level

Alienation

• Reducing/losing “species-essence” properties (eg., autonomy, self-control, etc.)

• By transferring them onto other entities

• Humans give up a portion of their autonomy by transferring power, control, agency to other entities.

The major challenge 1/2 • To understand grand socio-economic challenges, we need to account

for how much of the emergence-immergence of macrolevel entities (see Conte et al., 2007) consists of

• Alienation processes – When does construction of autonomous systems leads to social alienation?

– What is social alienation? How define and characterise it? We need a theory of interconnections between ontological dependence, social power and autonomy.

– What are necessary and sufficient conditions for social alienation? Is it definitory of any society? Can there be social order without social alienation?

– What are its effects on humans?

– Are social constructs bound to evolve into autonomous systems? When does this happen?

The major challenge 2/2

Is there a gradient and new forms of social alienation or is mankind less alienated under current regimes,

What is impact of a globalized world? And what about technologically-driven innovation? Is P2P a

lenient factor? Does it do any better? What about social and mental sustainability of innovation!!!

To what extent is social pathologies and unrest inherent to any human society?

What is the impact of new forms of alienation on current social pathologies, identity diseases, social unrest: criminality and terrorism, addiction, suicid, collapse of trust (and its effects)

IMPACT of FuturIcT: Theory-Driven Tools for Intervention

(ICT-enforced) Dynamics (exs)

Shape of authority / evolution of institutions

Mobility Post-democracy Growth (Social) contagion

and epidemics Communication

and (perceived) Security

FOR DOING

Systems for (exs) Tutoring and learning Preserving INFOdiversity

Peer-production Collective filtering Recommender systems

Managing Healthcare (e.g. epidemics) Security Crises, Risk taking, Panic

Innovating Financial sector Transport, traffic, logistics Electrical micro-generation,

renewable energy? Supporting

Institutional design Policy modelling Best practices identifying

Related Pathologies

Abstensionism and silent majority

Abstensionism and silent majority

Crime/corruption(raffiliation and

ecruitment mechanisms)

Crime/corruption(raffiliation and

ecruitment mechanisms)

Aging society:Economic Vs demographic growth

InequalityUnemployment

Aging society:Economic Vs demographic growth

InequalityUnemployment

Crises / EmergenciesCrises / Emergencies

PanicPanic

FOR UNDERSTANDING/ MONITORING/ ANTICIPATING

Political Radicalization/Terrrorism

Political Radicalization/Terrrorism

The good news

.. we got novel instruments Global-scale social simulation is now possibleCiting Helbing:

We could understand the major steps of human cultural evolution

We could simulate possible futuresWe can create new institutional designs

We would add

We can finally observe the growth of second society and the generation of social artefacts and their evolution

Indeed, social simulation is a most promising field of science…

Cites per field/discipline (from Conte, Paolucci, Picascia, 2010)

Citation variation per discipline

-100,00%

-50,00%

0,00%

50,00%

100,00%

150,00%

Titolo asse

SB 2000-04 78,87% 71,26% 115,63% 81,82% 95,65% 109,56% 78,18% 100,77% 42,86% 73,68% 113,76% 131,00%

tot2000-04 25,08% 25,13% 77,16% 42,03% 30,27% 0,00% -12,36% -1,84% 24,03% 50,87% 10,69% 52,52%

sb2004-08 51,57% 6,51% 34,78% 46,08% 32,22% 41,61% 65,12% 30,13% 130,00% 81,82% 33,91% 40,26%

tot2004-08 -8,56% -68,71% -10,71% -70,05% -51,86% -71,98% -58,67% -62,95% 14,21% -33,91% -64,80% -57,04%

PolSci Psych. Robotics Agent Sys Sociology Economics History Law EthologyAnthropol

ogyComplexity Geography

Cites per application domain (ibi.)

Citations variation per application domain

-100,00%

-50,00%

0,00%

50,00%

100,00%

150,00%

200,00%

Titolo asse

Simulation-based 2000-2004 126,80% 90,05% 110,22% 0,00% 114,47% 65,58% 162,50% 34,38% 133,33% 65,10% 101,64% 91,03% 98,90%

Discipline total 2000-2004 36,58% -11,63% 57,37% 52,11% -12,94% 108,00% 95,65% 25,76% 86,99% 27,03% 23,26% 66,04% 61,70%

Simulation-based 2004-2008 58,83% 53,17% 40,80% 80,00% 49,56% 42,03% 74,60% 51,50% 108,57% 27,44% 34,82% 60,40% 46,59%

Discipline total 2004-08 -71,23% -60,28% -25,92% -13,43% -67,29% -62,85% -55,70% -56,45% 21,74% -40,02% -60,38% -58,33% -31,51%

Security Education Planning Policy-mak. Administ. Govern. Sustain. dev. Consulting ICT systems ProfessionsIndustrial

prod.Epidemiology Res. M&D

Still to be checked…

Projects Patents

Conclusions 1/2General tendency to wishful thinking in social sciences (see

voices of moral progress, Montreal 2008)?

A preference for ideologically correct theories of social constructs as non-existent or non-autonomous entities

Time for producing new theories especially since we’ve got new scientific tool.

Simulation is more than accelerator of information acquisition. It is new way of doing science. It offers us a new opportunity for studying society: create a second one.

FAST2 is meant to build on such an opportunity, create a new environment and get best equipped for the tremendous tasks before us.

Conclusions 2/2

Two caveats:• Interdisciplinarity as a primary condition

for endeavour• Theory information! Simulation is a

means for building theory while building the phenomena to theorize upon.

Conclusions

FAST 2 FAbric of Society. Theory and Technology) Rosaria Conte and Mario Paolucci LABSS (Laboratory...

Documents

Transcript of FAST 2 FAbric of Society. Theory and Technology) Rosaria Conte and Mario Paolucci LABSS (Laboratory...